H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

BoraTas

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Richard Santos said:
Why do you suppose the bomber would not be ready to fly publically if it has already flown?

in Terms of flight dynamics, a large bomber optimized for high altitude subsonic penetration, even a pure flying wing, is much less complex than a fighter expected to frequently maneuver at the very edge of controllability, such as the J-10 or j-20. If this thing can fly, it can fly at air shows.

Also, I think the desired service date of H-20 would not be governed by Xi’s optimistic scenario of china’s untroubled ascension to global power projection capability. It would be governed by the pessimistic scenario that Taiwan would be successfully encouraged to declare outright independence well before China achieve global power projection capability as a means of discrediting the CCP and thus checking china’s progress towards global power projection capability. So 2025 seems a geostrategic ally very desirable target date.

also, it is reasonable for the Chinese to suppose the greatest geopolitical pressure and ostracization China will face will occur during the period when the threat of China achieving 1) regional conventional parity, 2) second strike nuclear parity with any plausible American led alliance clearly is there, but the actual attainment of that parity has not yet occurred.
Once the parity occurs, the dynamic will change and some sort of detent will no doubt occur.
Before that is achieved the pressure will be all towards squeezing and ostracizing China. So the longer China takes to achieve parity, the longer and more cumulatively damaging the pressure and ostracization campaign will be. So it behoves China to achieve its target of comprehensive regional parity and nuclear second strike parity quickly rather than slowly and deliberately.
Click to expand...
Both are actually currently happening. A lot of things have changed in nuclear balance when the DF-41 was introduced. The second one is only a matter of time at this point. Military acquisition spending of China is larger than the US when adjusted for the PPP. Logically, China will take over regional conventional superiority from the US very soon.
 
R

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
Both are actually currently happening. A lot of things have changed in nuclear balance when the DF-41 was introduced. The second one is only a matter of time at this point. Military acquisition spending of China is larger than the US when adjusted for the PPP. Logically, China will take over regional conventional superiority from the US very soon.
Click to expand...
Introduction of a missile changes nothing. Only the fully operational deployment of the missile on a adequate scale, as well as sufficient demonstration of the successful adoption of an appropriate creditable doctrine for employing the weapon, changes anything.

Loud mouthed proponents of arms build up looks at theoretical capability based on hardware. Real analyst or whether to fight or talk look at creditability of the capability. In terms of breath of experience needed to make capability credible, China is still far short of the US. 70 years of investing 6-12% of the world’s largest GDP isn’t a trivial thing to overcome.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Richard Santos said:
i didn’t say it had already flown. Someone else did. But if it had flown, nothing keeps it from flying over an air show on its second flight.
Click to expand...

Because that just isn't the way the PLA does things.

Any sort of hypothetical new type aircraft that has only flown once will not make its second flight at a public celebratory event, and frankly this applies not only to the PLA but virtually all other military forces as well.


Whether it is technically feasible or not is not important, because it is the developmental priorities and political risks that are of much greater concern in determining this.



For the PLA, I do not expect any new aircraft being developed for PLA service to make a "public appearance" (airshow, parade, flyover etc) until it has multiple prototypes that have been flying for 2-3 years.
 
G

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Richard Santos said:
H-20 can certainly be used for one way missions against Hawaii.

it also seems conceivable, although not commented upon, that H-20 can launch stealth trans-pacific strikes by using buddy tanker system where some H-20s are used as stealth aerial refueling tankers to extend the range of other H-20s
Click to expand...

What makes you think a flying wing will have such a limited range?
The B-2 has 6900mi/11000km range. I doubt the H-20 will have less range.
The Nazis had plans to use "Ho XVIIIB" flying wings as intercontinental bombers way back in late WW2 when materials and engine technology was way inferior to what it is today.

But to think it will be of much use in a full blown conflict with the US is a bit much. Flying wings are vulnerable to supersonic interceptors.
There are claims the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye can detect stealth aircraft and the US has its own range of long wave radars covering all the approaches to the US. I think it is too much to assume something like that would not be detected by either the US or Russian early warning radar networks.

It is mostly of use against 2nd tier opponents or after air superiority has already been achieved.

The whole point of the flying wing design isn't stealth it is payload and range.
 
A

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
What makes you think a flying wing will have such a limited range?
The B-2 has 6900mi/11000km range. I doubt the H-20 will have less range.
The Nazis had plans to use "Ho XVIIIB" flying wings as intercontinental bombers way back in late WW2 when materials and engine technology was way inferior to what it is today.

But to think it will be of much use in a full blown conflict with the US is a bit much. Flying wings are vulnerable to supersonic interceptors.
There are claims the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye can detect stealth aircraft and the US has its own range of long wave radars covering all the approaches to the US. I think it is too much to assume something like that would not be detected by either the US or Russian early warning radar networks.

It is mostly of use against 2nd tier opponents or after air superiority has already been achieved.

The whole point of the flying wing design isn't stealth it is payload and range.
Click to expand...
Range or combat range... if it's combat range, you need to take into considaration that the plane need to return home. From Hawaii, B2 need refueling if he want to go bombing in China and returning home.
 
R

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
you also need to consider the nominal range does not assume either combat weapons load, nor reserve fuel load, nor the fact that bombing combat missions are not flown in straight lines, but zig zag between way points selected avoid radars and defences, take advantage of any terrain cover, and set up approaches from the target’s less defended sides.
 
R

Richard Santos

Captain
Registered Member
China’s interest in Yf-23 style V tail in my mind dove tails with recently published conjectural drawing showing H20 possessing a pair of variable dihedral tail surfaces that can fold up to form a V tail, unlike the B-2, suggest to me the conjectural drawing has some credibility. The primary reason for adding V tail to a flying wing instead of adopting a more more pure flying wing configuration similar to B2 is probably the desire to enhance the H20’s side aspect stealth against airborne IR observers. I suspect the H20 put higher premium on fighting through airborne air defense than the B2.
 
Xizor

Xizor

Captain
Registered Member
Richard Santos said:
China’s interest in Yf-23 style V tail in my mind dove tails with recently published conjectural drawing showing H20 possessing a pair of variable dihedral tail surfaces that can fold up to form a V tail, unlike the B-2, suggest to me the conjectural drawing has some credibility. The primary reason for adding V tail to a flying wing instead of adopting a more more pure flying wing configuration similar to B2 is probably the desire to enhance the H20’s side aspect stealth against airborne IR observers. I suspect the H20 put higher premium on fighting through airborne air defense than the B2.
Click to expand...
But the H20 tail ( as shown in the artwork) is dissimilar to YF-23 V tail. Variable dihedral tail is from a magazine cover.

An aircraft that can be roughly compared in outline to the YF-23 is the mythical JX-XX ( which isn't even a live program). If I'm not wrong, the same magazine released the JH-XX concept art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top